A Nobel for Wal Mart?

John Tierney’s Op-Ed piece in the New York Times entitled “Shopping for a Nobel” (Subscription to the NY Times Select required), while seeming logical, also appears to miss the point of the Nobel altogether. Tierney quotes extensively from an article by Michael Strong (Forget the World Bank, Try Wal Mart), but appears to miss his point as well.

Michael Strong argues quite logically that economic growth is the best solution for global poverty - and that even though Wal Mart style mercantilism results in sweatshops and abuse, the fact remains that for the truly poor, these are still better than remaining poor. In fact, he quotes from Paul Krugman :

These improvements … [are] the indirect and unintended result of the actions of soulless multinationals and rapacious local entrepreneurs, whose only concern was to take advantage of the profit opportunities offered by cheap labor. It is not an edifying spectacle; but no matter how base the motives of those involved, the result has been to move hundreds of millions of people from abject poverty to something still awful but nonetheless significantly better.

In other words - Wal Mart hasn’t set out to alleviate global poverty, and would gladly give up the unintended consequences if it could benefit from doing so. Sure, the jobs created help the poor - but if Wal Mart could find a cheaper source elsewhere, it couldn’t care less about dropping these people back into the hole.

The Nobel Prize commemorates endeavour and effort by individuals and organisations towards societal goals, knowledge and betterment. Unsaid in that, is that the endeavour is without thought of personal benefit. It can & usually does happen that achievement is rewarded with benefit - but post facto, not as the cause.

Suggesting that Wal Mart’s aggrandizing style with it’s unintended consequence of helping the poor, is akin to nominating the September 11 terrorists for an award - because they helped create Memorial Park. Or rather, the need for it.

Written by 2cworth on October 18th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Opinions.